The Management cannot insist on the resignation of a permanent lecturer selected for appointment as Principal on probation for one year as a condition for handing over charge.

J.N. DUBEY, J.

1. WHEN this writ petition was presented on 5th September, 1984 by the Committee of Management, Gokul Das Hindu Girls College, Moradabad, against order dated 26-7-1984 passed by the Director of Education in exercise of power under section 13 of the Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Bench entertaining the petition directed the petitioner to serve opposite party no. 3 and permitted her to file counter-affidavit. It stayed operation of order dated 26th July 84 and 14th August 84 by which District Magistrate had directed the petitioner to pay salary of opposite party no. 3 as Principal since 10-8-1984.

2. COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

Having heard counsel for the parties it does not appear that petitioner can be granted any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. ADMITTEDLY opposite party no. 3 who had been working as a Sanskrit teacher in the college was selected by the Services Commission and recommended for appointment as a Principal of the college. Under section 14 of the Act the management is required within a period of one month from the date of receipt of recommendation of the Commission under section 13 to issue appointment letter to the candidate whose name appears on the top in order of preference. But no appointment letter was issued. It appears the Management was not happy with her appointment. It appointed one Smt. Sharda Swamp to officiate. She filed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's selection. It was admitted and appointment of the petitioner was stayed. Later on this order at the instance of opposite party no. 3 was vacated. Five months elapsed in all this and feeling of distrust between the petitioner and the opposite party appears to have developed. In May, 1984 opposite party no. 3 invoked Director of Education's jurisdiction under section 15 of the Act the Management then Issued letter of appointment on 24-7-1984. No sooner was this letter received the opposite party applied on 26-7-1984 for one years' extra-ordinary leave from the post she was working. It was rejected next day. The Director of Education in the meantime decided application of opposite party no. 3. He did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner that opposite party had violated any regulation or had misconducted herself in a manner which could disentitle her from being appointed as Principal of the college. It was found that opposite party was not justified in attempting to act as Principal of the college without her appointment and handing over of charge. But that according to him appeared due to ignorance of rules. The Director, therefore, directed the petitioner in exercise of his power under section 15 (2) of the Act to hand over charge of Principal to opposite party no. 3 by 10th August, 1984. He further permitted opposite party to approach Collector to recover her arrears of salary as arrears of land revenue under section 51 (3) in case petitioner did not comply with the order when the petitioner did not honour the order of the Director of Education the opposite party approached the District Magistrate, who under the byelaws of the college is its patron as well. The District Magistrate on the application of the opposite party no. 3 appears to have invited petitioner's comments, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. In it the principal stand of the petitioner is that opposite party could he handed over charge only if she resigned from the post of lecturer in Sanskrit and produce relevant certificate to that effect.

4. FROM what has been narrated above an impression is created that Management has not been fair to opposite party. It has been creating all possible obstacles to frustrate opposite party's selection. It did not issue the letter of appointment within one month in contravention of section 14 of the Act. And when it did after nearly more than six months of communication of selec